Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Prosecutrix Is a Major Lady and Went to Hotel Room using her ID With Her Consent; Allegation of Rape is Not Sustainable: Madhya Pradesh

You are currently viewing Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Prosecutrix Is a Major Lady and Went to Hotel Room using her ID With Her Consent; Allegation of Rape is Not Sustainable: Madhya Pradesh

Case title Hidden : Case no : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1380 of 2023 Madhya Pradesh High Court

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that the prosecutrix is a major lady and went to the hotel room with her consent; the allegation of rape is not sustainable. The bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Trial Court.

Hon’ble court finds that after filling complaint against appellant ,Prosecutrix get married  whereas appellant/man was still unmarried. Under these circumstances, it cannot be envisaged that till then the appellant has broken the promise of marriage.

Court also observed the recent judgement of Naeem Ahmad Vs. Stated of 2023 LawSuit (SC) 80, is also worth to mention here :- “20. The bone of contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her and subsequently he did not marry, and therefore such consent was no consent in the eye of law and the case fell under the Clause – Secondly of Section 375 IPC. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of 11 breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise. So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376. As stated earlier, each case would depend upon its proved facts before the court.”

Court finds that the physical relations between the prosecutrix and appellant were made with consent. Certainly, marriage was not consummated between them due to some unforeseen circumstances. However, since the appellant himself has not specifically declined regarding marriage with prosecutrix, the allegation of false promise can not be established. The prosecutrix is a major lady, she has not made any alarm and she has also used her ID Card in course of check-in the hotel room. She has not made any complaint to her parents in this regard. Hence, the prosecution case regarding committal of physical relations on misconception has not been evinced beyond all reasonable doubts.

 In the wake of analysis, HC ordered that, the findings of the learned trial Court regarding conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code is perverse and deserves to be set aside and also ordered to refund the amount deposited by him for the learned trial court.

Leave a Reply